Have they already ruined guild wars?

[black_light]

Those problems don’t have to be set forth by the players around you. These problems can be set forth by the game and it’s mechanics and still require player interaction to solve

I believe that enabling world gvg or pvp is set by the game and its mechanics, but well, i understand what you mean, however, that is not possible.
Certainly you need to socialize and work together to overcome the limitations of a game’s engine, but in the end, nothing the game will throw at you will be on the level of human interaction.
I mean really. Would we have bot guilds which interact like humans and are indistinguishable from players? Sure, i give you 100% right and count me in on the fun.
However, we are kinda far from anything like that happening. Arent we?

People will generate drama and get their panites twisted over literally anything. I’ve never seen diplomacy work unless there’s an explicit diplomatic system implemented, and from what I’ve seen in recent-ish MMOs that people don’t WANT to be social outside of their little group of 10 to 20 people.

Maybe im getting old’n all, but i cant really understand what you mean.
You’ve never seen diplomacy work unless there is a system for it?
What…?
Like… how about communication between guild leaders? I mean i literally dont understand what you are on about here. The original ragnarok online had absolutely no diplomatic systems in place. All you had was your keyboard and the ingame chat. Go and talk it out.
I might add: surprisingly enough, it worked perfectly well.

With consenting GvG there will still be drama, with no guilds at all there will still be drama.

Drama without a reason is stupidity and nothing more. Sure: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”, but with that being said, i dont see your point.
Yes, people bish and moan about everything, but only interactive systems inside the game will contribute towards your experience.
i.e.: Someone crying on the forums that he got killed and wants everything nerfed with his class being buffed is not the same as getting a healthy amount of mad at an enemy guild which now you intend to crush.
One contributes to your game, the other (even in best case scenario) has nothing to do with it.

I don’t see how adding consent to GvG completely removes GvG from the game, as opposed to it being a solution to being able to do nothing about your guild tower being destroyed while your guild was offline.

Ragnarok online had that issue solved with guild castles (towers if you wish) being targetable only during woe times. See, there is one example of talking about possible workarounds without damaging the system itself.

[thebloodyaugust]

2.) Players are an actual threat (I assume all people are out to get me and will be hostile even to non-aggressives, even if, or ESPECIALLY IF, my group outnumbers them)

If this is all you took away from my posts you clearly has selective reading as i proposed alternatives that would protect those that dont want to pvp and dosnt ruin the system

Which is why no one will propose IMC create separate pvp and pve servers. Because(and big surprise here)the pvp server population will most likely be but a fraction of what the pve servers are.

No one suggests this because dividing the player base in more ways is stupid and has been covered in many topics you can find via the search function

[OtterTamer]

You realize your arguments here are in support of the consent system.

I already said that Guilds with casual elements are fine.

Then let them be.

==>GriefingOnly if you were at war against somebody. And for that, you should have been ready, it was your own decision.

No. NOW If you are at war with someone it’s your own decision. Before, and with the system you’re arguing for. People could declare war on any guild they wanted and they people on the recieving end don’t get a decision. It’s happened in the KTOS server and there’s even a thread here about someone wanting to make a guild and declare war on everyone.

It was YOUR decision to join Guild, why the hell are you complaining?

“What I want to do in a guild deserves priority over what Qualna wants to do in a guild (even though I can still go to war with people)”

[thebloodyaugust]

No. NOW If you are at war with someone it’s your own decision.

Except now its not a war. Now its a friendly request to challenge, i preferred the self policing system we had previously.

[OtterTamer]

It’s not much of a policing system when it causes more drama than it prevents.

[LirashMjorl]

I think it is a good decision since not every one is into pvp, I mean I agree about add a PK system where you can change to PK mode and fight to any one you see bc that means that any one will be able to attack you too, but I disagree with this GvG mode where high ended guilds declare wars againts casuals, new players. How is it fun when they can’t even offers resistance? It is not different from kill mobs if they can’t fight back.

Now, I think this game needs a pvp event, similar to WoE in RO (don’t hate me, it is just an example), Alliance in Tera (without all the bugs and stupid auras). Something where you can go, do pvp and win something for it, that way strong PvP Guilds will have a good reason to fight each other instead of farm lower players for… fun? (I think is more about compensate a complex but they say it is for fun).

[thebloodyaugust]

Thats just a lack of the community banding together sooner or later they would learn to self police themselves and pick their fights carefully. What it needed was more time.

[Autentist]

Yeah, I heard about the Myst guild. It was extremely fun. Not only for Myst themselves, but also for Koreans as well.

There can be workaround solutions, like Black Light said. For example, if you don’t want to participate in PvP, you can vote or the system can ask you. But limiting everything because someone complained he was “ganked” is wrong in the core.

The last decision always belongs to the Guild Leader, any problems with that?

[OtterTamer]

Or the community can just delve deeper into the toilet. Maybe it would self police eventually, but why take the risk? What games leaves the community to sort it’s own issues out? We have proper reporting channels for a reason. Not this eye for an eye bullshit.

@Autentist Well I’m sure the people stuck in towns because they were being held hostage didn’t think it was extremely fun/

As for the rest of your post. You just described the new system. It is down to the guild leader to accept the challenge. So yeah, if that’s what you see as a compromise I don’t know what you think the consent system is.

[Qualna]

growing crops CANNOT be done by every player in the game. If my understanding of guild mechanics is correct, you are not allowed to plant in someone else’s guild tower.

You keep saying “it’s your own decision” and yet you’re defending not having a decision. Yes, I did throw the 500 man guild number out from nowhere, but nothing is stopping 10+ “sister” guilds from all making the same declarations.

If it’s the way you want to put it, yes I am a “pve crab”. I don’t find fighting other players fun. Never have and probably never will.

@black_light
I could be presumptuous since I never played it, but the reason diplomacy worked in RO was because socialization wasn’t dead then. Nowadays if you were to ask a guild lead why they’re attacking you, chances are all you’ll get is a “because your face is ugly” in response.

i.e.: Someone crying on the forums that he got killed and wants everything nerfed with his class being buffed is not the same as getting a healthy amount of mad at an enemy guild which now you intend to crush.One contributes to your game, the other (even in best case scenario) has nothing to do with it.

I can agree with this, but I’m going to get more specific and say that the contribution that guild wars make can be positive and negative, and we need a way to keep guild wars “healthy”, the Great War of Ausurine being an example of “unhealthy” guild wars. If the drama’s allowed to infect people who want nothing to do with it, something needs to be done to stop it from getting to that point.

Ragnarok online had that issue solved with guild castles (towers if you wish) being targetable only during woe times

That involves handing some control to the system, which some people in this thread aren’t OK with. As long as we have the ability to share towers/castles or opt out of WoE-like events I’m fine.

[thebloodyaugust]

but why take the risk?

Why have a fun MMO? instead of the generic trash that everyone forgets about like 99% of mmos?

[OtterTamer]

Because fun is subjective. Also can you give a good example of a game where the community effecively polices themselves? Hell this forum struggles to effectively police itself.

[thebloodyaugust]

I could be presumptuous since I never played it, but the reason diplomacy worked in RO was because socialization wasn’t dead then. Nowadays if you were to ask a guild lead why they’re attacking you, chances are all you’ll get is a “because your face is ugly” in response.

There wasn’t open war in Ragnarok there was/is designated maps and time frames which the wars take place to capture castles that provide items to create the some of the best or near best equips in the game.

[Autentist]

I mean, one Guild Leader announces war with another Guild. It starts without the other side agreeing.
THEN people are asked, if they want to participate in this PvP war.

Now this option gives people more freedom to choose - participate or not participate, otherwise, they are dependent on the Leader’s decicision. So there are people who want to go to war and there are people who don’t, it’s fine. But give the option to choose to the people themselves.

Don’t limit the entire system.

[Autentist]

==>Someone’s else Tower

And this does not answer my question in any way. ANY player in your Guild can grow crops in Guildtower.

That’s why I’m talking about having a choice - look further in my posts above.

See, it’s still about the choices. But it’s your choice, not your Leader. With this system you limit this choice, by inducing it on everyone.

[OtterTamer]

Why should it start without the other side agreeing? I don’t have any beef with half a guild fighting without their other half if that’s what they choose, but what you’re suggesting doesn’t help with that at all. (and incidentally, the system we have now is still closer to that than the one before.)

[Autentist]

Because, Jesus Christ, there are people in your Guild, who actually freaking want to start a war.
And then… nope, you got shafted. See? You limit their choices by this system. If you had a choice, then they will go to war, while you will grow your crops or whatever you want.

Basically, you won’t be ganked, since you CHOSE to not participate in this, like system marks you. Understand now?

[Qualna]

Let me see if I get this process right

1. “Big Bads” has declared war on your guild, would you like to participate? Y/N
2. I opt not to participate and instead babysit my giant hamster farm, which needs to be inside my guild tower
3. The pvpers in my guild lose to “Big Bads”
4. “Big Bads” destroys my guild tower an wins the war
5. My giant hamster farm is now gone as a consequence of pvp activity I opted out of

[thebloodyaugust]

Once again this is why i proposed the option for Social / War guild during creation.

The we don’t lose a awesome pvp system and people afraid of pvp can have their peaceful guilds that can nether declare war or be declared on.

[Autentist]

Then don’t join the guild with PvP intents. Or don’t join the guild at all.
You are being really egocentric right now towards people who want to participate in PvP with your hamster farm.

And one more thing. If your Guild loses… that means you were weak. It’s simple.